harness_xwfim_preflight

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions the tool writes multiple outputs (artifacts, status JSON, report stub, audit log), which implies side effects. However, it does not disclose potential impacts like required permissions, idempotency, or whether it is a safe read operation. Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only partially addresses behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the action and outputs. It is concise without being too sparse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the preflight process, parameter roles, or how the tool fits into a workflow. The output schema exists but is not referenced; the description should provide more context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter meaning. Although parameter names like 'case_name' and 'xwfim_root' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema. For 8 parameters, this is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Run' and resource 'XWFIM preflight', and lists the outputs (artifacts, status JSON, report stub, audit log). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspect_xwfim_cache', the name and description give a clear sense of the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The description only states what the tool does without any usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.